Top Law Schools

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:Hi December peoples!

Took October, checking in because I might possibly maybe kinda start studying for December sometime, even if just for scholly. Would love to get my RC lower as its about -4 to -6 on newer tests.

i_wish_i_was_smart wrote:PT 57

LG: -2
LR: -2
LR: -0
RC: -1

176

Dinosaurs game screwed me over. I ended up taking too long and still got 2 wrong. I actually didn't get anything wrong on that game itself but made a stupid mistake on the first easy game and an error in the last game. Ugh.
The first LR section gave me more trouble than it should have.

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:

appind wrote:

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:Hi December peoples!

Took October, checking in because I might possibly maybe kinda start studying for December sometime, even if just for scholly. Would love to get my RC lower as its about -4 to -6 on newer tests.

welcome mint

i couldn't take the October solely because of modern RC. if i could get RC to a consistent -4 or less than i'd be ready but i don't know what i can do to improve. already exhausted all tests.

Thanks appind!

So in reviewing the most recent practice tests, I had a couple takeaways.

They seem much more reliant on identifying the MP. It really seemed like more tricky ACs were directly related to the evidences and topics introduced in the passage, but they could be easily dismissed once you had a firm grasp of the MP. ( same goes for attitude).

I don't think they made the passages any harder, I think they made the questions tougher. In that now there seems to be more choices that are tempting. On the other hand TCR might feel like a stretch (as far as inferences go), but it would often be the only thing with much support. The rest of the ACs would mix up topics or maybe attribute a VP to evidence which is unrelated but mentioned elsewhere in the passage. They seem to lend themselves to directly referring back to the passage (as opposed to trying to remember everything), and I really felt like I benefitted when I read the whole paragraph when I needed to.

The biggest thing I think, is actually trying to anticipate what TCR is. I really focused on the newer tests on trying to identify what we know about the concept being questioned. It really helped me sort through the distracting answers. The only really hard ones are the very global questions like "the author would agree with which of the following" and it doesn't refer to anything specific in the stim. For those I eliminate by finding each topic in the passage.

Idk if this really helps anyone, but I figured I'd throw out my 2c. For 72-75 I went through each RC summarizing the passages, questions, and ACs.

Also appind, I found it really helpful retake PTs (I had done them all by June) and really focus on my actual testing habits and strategies. So maybe this time around focus on 60-76 and really get analytical as to what you're missing in RC. I had to take a really detailed approach to start getting things.

shineoncrazydiamond wrote:

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:

appind wrote:

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:Hi December peoples!

Took October, checking in because I might possibly maybe kinda start studying for December sometime, even if just for scholly. Would love to get my RC lower as its about -4 to -6 on newer tests.

welcome mint

i couldn't take the October solely because of modern RC. if i could get RC to a consistent -4 or less than i'd be ready but i don't know what i can do to improve. already exhausted all tests.

Thanks appind!

So in reviewing the most recent practice tests, I had a couple takeaways.

They seem much more reliant on identifying the MP. It really seemed like more tricky ACs were directly related to the evidences and topics introduced in the passage, but they could be easily dismissed once you had a firm grasp of the MP. ( same goes for attitude).

I don't think they made the passages any harder, I think they made the questions tougher. In that now there seems to be more choices that are tempting. On the other hand TCR might feel like a stretch (as far as inferences go), but it would often be the only thing with much support. The rest of the ACs would mix up topics or maybe attribute a VP to evidence which is unrelated but mentioned elsewhere in the passage. They seem to lend themselves to directly referring back to the passage (as opposed to trying to remember everything), and I really felt like I benefitted when I read the whole paragraph when I needed to.

The biggest thing I think, is actually trying to anticipate what TCR is. I really focused on the newer tests on trying to identify what we know about the concept being questioned. It really helped me sort through the distracting answers. The only really hard ones are the very global questions like "the author would agree with which of the following" and it doesn't refer to anything specific in the stim. For those I eliminate by finding each topic in the passage.

Idk if this really helps anyone, but I figured I'd throw out my 2c. For 72-75 I went through each RC summarizing the passages, questions, and ACs.

Also appind, I found it really helpful retake PTs (I had done them all by June) and really focus on my actual testing habits and strategies. So maybe this time around focus on 60-76 and really get analytical as to what you're missing in RC. I had to take a really detailed approach to start getting things.

This is really helpful, Mint. Especially agree about analyzing what you're missing and why.

My additional 2 cents as somebody for whom RC has been holding scores back most: I haven't gone through the most recent PTs as extensively, but in my more limited experience what Mint said rings true. I feel that there are more "trap" wrong answer choices in recent PTs, if that makes sense-ones that might seem like a good idea if you didn't fully grasp the main idea of the passage or aren't reading carefully but can be eliminated if you put in a little work up front to grasp the main arguments/themes in the passage.

I have found that Mint's strategy of trying to anticipate the correct answer ahead of time so that you don't fall into said traps is useful. I also thought that a slightly less elaborate version of Manhattan's RC strategy, trying to set up a "scale" in passages where there are two potentially contrasting views presented and identifying where the author and any other parties mentioned fall was helpful. I was missing 5-6 on some of the later RCs with no time to spare and when I tried this strategy yesterday on PT63 I didn't miss any and finished on time. I am curious to see how it works for more PTs in the 70s though, and for a larger sample size (maybe those passages just worked for me or I was on top of my game more than usual or something).

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:
Thanks appind!

So in reviewing the most recent practice tests, I had a couple takeaways.

They seem much more reliant on identifying the MP. It really seemed like more tricky ACs were directly related to the evidences and topics introduced in the passage, but they could be easily dismissed once you had a firm grasp of the MP. ( same goes for attitude).

I don't think they made the passages any harder, I think they made the questions tougher. In that now there seems to be more choices that are tempting. On the other hand TCR might feel like a stretch (as far as inferences go), but it would often be the only thing with much support. The rest of the ACs would mix up topics or maybe attribute a VP to evidence which is unrelated but mentioned elsewhere in the passage. They seem to lend themselves to directly referring back to the passage (as opposed to trying to remember everything), and I really felt like I benefitted when I read the whole paragraph when I needed to.

The biggest thing I think, is actually trying to anticipate what TCR is. I really focused on the newer tests on trying to identify what we know about the concept being questioned. It really helped me sort through the distracting answers. The only really hard ones are the very global questions like "the author would agree with which of the following" and it doesn't refer to anything specific in the stim. For those I eliminate by finding each topic in the passage.

Idk if this really helps anyone, but I figured I'd throw out my 2c. For 72-75 I went through each RC summarizing the passages, questions, and ACs.

Also appind, I found it really helpful retake PTs (I had done them all by June) and really focus on my actual testing habits and strategies. So maybe this time around focus on 60-76 and really get analytical as to what you're missing in RC. I had to take a really detailed approach to start getting things.

shineoncrazydiamond wrote: This is really helpful, Mint. Especially agree about analyzing what you're missing and why.

My additional 2 cents as somebody for whom RC has been holding scores back most: I haven't gone through the most recent PTs as extensively, but in my more limited experience what Mint said rings true. I feel that there are more "trap" wrong answer choices in recent PTs, if that makes sense-ones that might seem like a good idea if you didn't fully grasp the main idea of the passage or aren't reading carefully but can be eliminated if you put in a little work up front to grasp the main arguments/themes in the passage.

I have found that Mint's strategy of trying to anticipate the correct answer ahead of time so that you don't fall into said traps is useful. I also thought that a slightly less elaborate version of Manhattan's RC strategy, trying to set up a "scale" in passages where there are two potentially contrasting views presented and identifying where the author and any other parties mentioned fall was helpful. I was missing 5-6 on some of the later RCs with no time to spare and when I tried this strategy yesterday on PT63 I didn't miss any and finished on time. I am curious to see how it works for more PTs in the 70s though, and for a larger sample size (maybe those passages just worked for me or I was on top of my game more than usual or something).

shineoncrazydiamond wrote: I feel that there are more "trap" wrong answer choices in recent PTs, if that makes sense-ones that might seem like a good idea if you didn't fully grasp the main idea of the passage or aren't reading carefully but can be eliminated if you put in a little work up front to grasp the main arguments/themes in the passage.

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:

[+] Spoiler

pt72 passage about artifacts in Mali. Almost every correct answer comes from the last paragraph which functions as the real MP. While the rest of the wrong ACs for most of the questions are either false, or talk about evidence from other paragraphs in a way that conflicts with the MP

appind wrote: of the differences i noticed in the modern PTs is that questions try to ask for things in slightly more complex way and require one to synthesize from details distributed in different parts of the passage. E.g. 75.RC.20. the question stem is somewhat different than usual, and it's actually very tricky to eliminate D.
also, 75.RC.14 A can be very close to a credited answer so it's not clear how much wiggle room is allowed for "most likely to agree" questions.

I've noticed this too. One of the things I left out above, is I paraphrase EVERYTHING in my head. When I get one of those confusing stims, I try to rephrase is so that it's basically down to "oh I'm strengthening X". I do the same on answer choices too, because I really think they try and present simple concepts as very complex in order to confuse you.

Your point about PT75 S2Q14 brings up the last bit of advice that I found really helpful. You have to read things very literally (I know that might conflict with above, but paraphrasing helped me realize the literal meanings of some choices).
That AC is saying

[+] Spoiler

What that AC is basically saying is: the public sees the codes, and is not convinced that there is not bias, and we just don't know if that's true. The public might be totally fine with the current system, it's the author whose not happy. TCR is a paraphrase of lines 22-24 which just makes this more right. I think what's confusing is that A might be righ if E were not TCR. Like if E was false, then maybe we could go with A.

generally for these I still find that wrong choices will still be 1) about stuff not talked about in the passages 2) false 3) confusing two topics

[+] Spoiler

"judges are sometimes removed for bias when they are not actually biased"

SirArthurDayne wrote:

josh9308 wrote:Took the PT40 and holy fuck that airplane connection game (G3) railed me hard. I had no idea how to diagram that game. Luckily, the other 3 games were relatively easy.



Also, why the fuck does this country still celebrate Columbus Day? I'm trying to go to the library god dammit.

I did that game last night as well. It was rough, but it's a good example of the flexibility you have to have for twists the LSAT throws at you.

Agree about Columbus day.

SirArthurDayne wrote:

ltowns1 wrote:How is studying goin everybody?

Going to the library today after work to study from 5-10. I've been going light the past week after the Oct test but I'm going to pick it up this week.

PatriotP74 wrote:My Manhattan package is supposed to arrive tomorrow so I will be able to actually get started on all the lesson plans with homework and such. Have a few days I've taken off the next couple weeks hoping to hop through a few lessons to get ahead.

This last week off has been nice. But time to get back to the grind.